fbpx

June 8, 2011

Rob Eshman: I’m a believer

I was a Jewish school skeptic.

When it was time to send our first child, our son, to school, my wife, a rabbi, insisted it be a Jewish school. I wondered, like a lot of parents, whether the quality of the education would be so superior to the local public school, or a similarly priced private school. I worried that he wouldn’t get the diverse social exposure pubic school provided. I doubted a school that divides its day between Jewish and general studies could excel at either. 

And the cost? I tallied 15 years of Jewish school tuition, from preschool through high school, times two children and figured we could buy an apartment in Tel Aviv for what we were going to spend. I thought a lot about what Rabbi Ed Feinstein told me at the time. When his kids wondered why he never drove a new car, he said, “I do buy a new car every year. It’s called a Day School Tuition.”

This past Sunday, as I sat in the sanctuary at Stephen S. Wise Temple and watched our son receive his high school diploma from Milken Community High School, it seemed like those 13 years had passed in seconds. Yesterday, he was the Shabbat daddy at Braverman Elementary Preschool at Wilshire Boulevard Temple. Two days ago, he was standing inside the bubble machine at the Pressman Academy Purim Carnival. And — blink — Sunday he sat in his cerulean cap and gown among the 136 Milken graduates as we parents watched, wondering where the time had gone. 

In many ways, my son’s journey through the Jewish education system also became my own. I am a product of San Fernando Valley public schools. My religious and cultural identities were shaped at home, Sunday school and the occasional synagogue visit. When my wife and I debated where to send our son, I argued that you couldn’t find a more Jewish school than Birmingham High was in the 1970s, when the campus turned into a ghost town on the High Holy Days. My wife argued that there is a big difference between gathering whatever nuggets of Jewish knowledge and tradition happen to fall into one’s hands, and actually mining, systematically, deeply, the many deep veins of text, liturgy and history that make up Judaism. 

She, of course, did not say this with such a clunky metaphor. And, as I saw our son progress, I came to understand what she meant. Pressman Academy laid a foundation for the study of Hebrew, Jewish history, Israel. Milken High exposed him to advanced levels of Jewish philosophy, the power of makloket, or learning through debate, and integrated his understanding with a general studies curriculum that included everything from Latin to robotics to architectural design. Far from seeing Judaism as separate from general knowledge, he learned how each strengthens, challenges and reinforces the other. In other words, he learned how to be a Jew in the world, and of the world.

But beyond the academics and field trips, I also saw him grow up in institutions that strive to embrace values that will serve him well his whole life: tradition and community, service and a love of learning for its own sake. 

Sometimes they fall short, because they, too, are part of the society they are trying to mold. But in a world where even your friendly congressman can be a sexual predator, and the lines between business and thievery are forever being blurred, a school that attempts to inject the study of morality and values into a curriculum is a very good thing.

That resonated as I read a wonderful essay by David Brooks in the May 31 issue of The New York Times. Brooks argued that the primary baby boomer value of finding yourself and following your bliss “misleads on nearly every front.” Instead, he wrote, graduates need to hear the value of “sacred commitments — to a spouse, a community and calling,” to counterbalance the baby boomers’  “litany of expressive individualism.”

You could argue — correctly — that all good schools, public and private, teach these values, or attempt to do so. But what occurred to me as I watched the Milken graduation ceremony proceed from “The Star-Spangled Banner” to “Hatikvah” to a benediction and through the speeches was why a good Jewish school is different. You don’t just graduate from a Jewish school, you also graduate with a deeper level of Jewish life. You haven’t gone out, you’ve gone further in. That core identity is something you can continue to develop and draw from throughout your life, as a foundation for a way to live and also a way to improve yourself, and to connect more deeply with your family and the world around you.

The students who spoke at the ceremony — Bradley Friedman, Jacob Schatz, Celia Megdal and valedictorian Robert Ravanshenas — all emphasized the fact that a Jewish education has offered them not just a shot at knowledge, but at wisdom. In a life that will be filled with decisions, Schatz said, Milken didn’t provide the answers, but rather a foundation of values on which to base one’s answers: intellectual debate, honesty, a concern for making the world a better place.

Megdal delivered her speech in Hebrew. “We are not only individual students,” she said. “We … are a community, part of the living, thriving People of Israel. The world expects more from us. We cannot only learn, grow and celebrate, but we must teach, nurture and support. Today I ask each of you to do more. … We have been given an excellent education, and are therefore especially compelled to live meaningful lives — not only for ourselves, but for all the generations that came before us, and for all those who follow us.”

It was a beautiful speech. Fifteen years after enrolling, I’m a believer.


Rob Eshman is the Editor-in-Chief of The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles.

Rob Eshman: I’m a believer Read More »

David Suissa: Cheap blood

As I was doing research last week for a column on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I stumbled on a story in The New Republic titled “Darfur Is Getting Worse: Why Aren’t the U.N. and U.S. Pressuring Khartoum to Reverse This Horrific Trend?”

According to Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College and author of “A Long Day’s Dying: Critical Moments in the Darfur Genocide,” Darfur has become “all but invisible.” As he writes: “With fewer and fewer human rights reports, news dispatches, or even candid accounts from U.N. leaders, events in the region have dropped almost fully out of international view.”

This is the same region where, according to Jewish World Watch, 400,000 people have been killed and 3 million more have been displaced in the last decade. Sadly, Reeves says, the catastrophe there is deepening dramatically as they head into this season’s “hunger gap,” the dangerous rainy period beginning in October, when water-borne diseases become much more common.

Because of “increasing restrictions on travel imposed by the Khartoum regime,” Reeves says, “hundreds of thousands of lives are at acute risk.”

So, while human rights activists will be sailing their flotillas this month to protest Israel’s partial and defensive blockade against a terrorist regime in Gaza, thousands of Darfurians will continue to suffer and die — quietly — because not enough people are screaming for the murderous regime in Khartoum to ease the strangling of its people.

And this fall, while the eyes of the world will be fixated on the Palestinians’ diplomatic moves at the United Nations, don’t expect to hear much about the hundreds of thousands of Darfurians whose misery will be compounded by water-borne diseases and the cruel blockade of their oppressors.

Even in President Barack Obama’s speech of May 19, in which he used more than 5,000 words to discuss the ills of the Middle East and North Africa — including more than 1,000 words on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — not one word was spoken about the genocidal suffering of Darfurians in Sudan.

Why is that? Is Sudan not “north” enough for the president — even though it borders Egypt and Libya and even Kenya, where Obama’s father was born?

If Obama cares so much about the downtrodden, why is he giving so little public attention to the humanitarian disaster in Darfur?

Why has a Hollywood actor like George Clooney spoken out so loudly against this genocide, while the leader of the free world has kept relatively quiet?

As Reeves reminds us: “Darfur’s ongoing catastrophe is poised to result in even greater human destruction and suffering. The reports are endless. So too, evidently, is the capacity of the international community to pretend that none of this is happening, or to ignore it, or to not care enough to act.

“The world has all the evidence needed to know that this is so, but it lacks the resolve to bring to bear on Khartoum the pressure that will change the regime’s brutal ways.”

It’s a funny thing: When it comes to pressuring Israel, the world never seems to lack any resolve.

As far as pressuring Sudan, Reeves concludes that “the Obama administration should make clear that, unless Khartoum grants unfettered humanitarian access and freedom of movement for the U.N. peacekeeping mission, the regime will see no lifting of sanctions, no further discussion of removal from the list of terrorist-sponsoring nations, no further normalizing of relations, and robust U.S. opposition to debt relief for Khartoum at the World Bank and IMF [International Monetary Fund].”

Why couldn’t Obama say those simple words in his May 19 speech?

What I find most disheartening about the Darfur crisis is that the facts are so clear. There’s no torturous debate here about “two sides of the story.” Like a passionate American politician once said: “The government of Sudan has pursued a policy of genocide in Darfur. Hundreds of thousands of men, women and children have been killed in Darfur, and the killing continues to this very day.”

That passionate politician was candidate Barack Obama in 2008.

Three years and thousands of killings later, the tragedy continues. Where is Obama now? Sure, I know — he can’t tackle every crisis that comes along. But if the president can harp about the plight of the Palestinians — by far the most coddled victim group in history — why can’t he harp about a cause where 400,000 innocents have been slaughtered? If the “killing continues to this very day,” doesn’t that make the Darfurian cause at least as “urgent” as the Palestinian cause?

And where are all those human rights activists who’ve made a fetish out of bashing Israel but can’t seem to get agitated at the notion of murderous African dictators drowning their people in misery?

Are Darfurian victims not “cool” enough because they don’t throw rocks or look like Che Guevara? Are the bad guys not bad enough because they’re not Jews or Israelis?

Imagine being one of those African victims and watching the international news one night. Imagine how it must feel to see that your genocide is being virtually ignored, while the Palestinian cause has become the darling mission of the world and a media and U.N. obsession.

How can you not conclude that Darfurian blood is cheap?

How can one ever call that “progressive”?


David Suissa is a branding consultant and the founder of OLAM magazine. For speaking engagements and other inquiries, he can be reached at {encode=”suissa@olam.org” title=”suissa@olam.org”} or davidsuissa.com.

David Suissa: Cheap blood Read More »

When Mutants Matter

“To those who said X-Men First Class was good, I want to stab you in the face.”

My friend Jason posted this to Facebook yesterday. Hyperbole aside, I understand his frustration.

Fox was in spin mode this past weekend trying to explain a lower-than-expected opening for the fifth film in the “X-Men” franchise ($55.1 M—the lowest since the first film debuted in 2000 at $54 M … $79 M today if adjusted for inflation). The studio blamed the lack of bankable stars, the lack of a big-name director and the film’s 1960s setting.

But is there another problem? For Jason and other longtime fans of the best-selling comics, a heavily revised origin story for a franchise that’s older than “Star Trek” is a slap in the face from Hollywood.

“I thought they were gonna make changes…I didn’t realize they were rewriting everything…and I mean everything,” Jason writes.

Based on the feedback Jason’s getting from his friends, it seems most are content to wait until the film hits the rental market or television. One responder writes that she’s ignoring “First Class,” looking on it as a “money-making ‘place card’ ” until the next “X” film, “The Wolverine,” which is being adapted from the phenomenally popular Chris Claremont and Frank Miller miniseries.

For me, I became a “First Class” fence-sitter once I saw that the featured mutant characters weren’t based on the original 1963 lineup created by writer Stan Lee and artist Jack Kirby.

Instead of Scott Summers as the Professor X’s first student, we get the villain Mystique. (((((facepalm)))))

There’s no Jean Grey (Marvel Girl/Phoenix/etc.), Bobby Drake (Iceman) or Warren Worthington III (Angel). Hank McCoy (Beast) is the only original X-Man in the film, but even Silver Age X-Men side characters Alex Summers (Havok) and Sean Cassidy (Banshee) get more prominent roles than good ol’ Beast.

To better understand why the lineup change for a film called “First Class” would be frustrating to a longtime X-Men fan: imagine a “Harry Potter” film without Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger. Instead, the filmmaker taps Neville Longbottom and Draco Malfoy to be Harry’s best friends. It would be, in a word, wrong.

“First Class” conflates storylines, timelines and characters, including turning Sebastian Shaw, leader of the Hellfire Club, into a Nazi who becomes a target of Magneto’s post-Holocaust rage a la “Inglourious Basterds.” (My colleague Naomi Pfefferman declared “First Class” the “most Jewish superhero movie ever” on her blog, The Ticket. But it could have been even Jewier had the filmmakers stayed true to the comic and shown Professor X and Magneto meeting for the first time in in 1950s Israel, where they started debating whether mutants could co-exist with normal humans.)

Die-hard fans who want to enjoy the film without being bothered by its inaccuracies can easily look on “First Class” as a story set on an alternative Earth in the Marvel multiverse. But others, like those who responded to Jason’s post, aren’t taking the bait. The summer is stocked with plenty of geek fare: “Green Lantern,” “Captain America,” “Cowboys & Aliens,” “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” and “Conan.”

Some fans might be thinking: Why settle?

When Mutants Matter Read More »

My Jewish Credo

About 20 years ago, a Jewish publication in Australia invited me to make a list of my basic Jewish beliefs. I found the exercise much more difficult and much more significant than I had anticipated. I have come to believe that all those who consider themselves thoughtful individuals should draw up a list of their fundamental beliefs — not only religious ones, but political, social and moral as well. At least as much as our psyche and our nature, our core beliefs are what make us who we are.

Unlike my list of 20 years ago — which I have not looked at in preparing this list — I have appended a “therefore” to each belief. The reason is that the “therefores” are even more important than the beliefs themselves. They are the consequences of the beliefs, and the consequences of any belief are what matter.

Here, then, are one Jew’s core Jewish beliefs.

1. There is a God who is the Creator of the world.

Therefore, life is not a meaningless coincidence, but has ultimate meaning — even if we humans are not fully capable of knowing what that meaning is.

2. This God is a personal God — meaning that God knows each of us.

Therefore, God matters and we matter. If there is a Creator God who does not know His creations, He doesn’t matter and we don’t matter. That is why there is no meaningful difference between belief in a God who does not know us and atheism.

3. “Personal God” does not mean that God necessarily intervenes in the life of each of us.

Therefore, we humans should be more concerned with what God wants from us than what we want from God.

4. This God is known as “the God of Israel.”

Therefore, those who say they believe in God but are unwilling to identify this God as the God of Israel believe in another god than believing Jews and Christians do.

5. God is moral and just.

Therefore, God judges all men and women.

6. There is ultimate justice.

Therefore, there is an afterlife. If there were no afterlife, God would neither be good nor just, since there is little justice in this life.

7. As G.K. Chesterton put it, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.”

Therefore, the secular West has produced a plethora of foolish, often dangerous, substitutes for God-based religion. These include substitute religions such as socialism, feminism and environmentalism, and evils such as communism and Nazism.

8. The Jews are God’s Chosen People, which means they have been chosen to bring humanity to God and His ethical standards (ethical monotheism).

Therefore, (1) the most evil regimes and doctrines of each generation focus their hatred on the Jews and, (2) there is transcendent meaning to the Jews’ existence and even to the Jews’ suffering.

9. Most Jews do not understand the meaning of chosenness.

Therefore, the greatest Jewish tragedy is that few Jews engage in this mission of the Jewish people. The Jews who talk to the world rarely live or advocate Judaism; and the Jews who live Judaism rarely talk to the world.

10. God blesses those who bless the Jews and curses those who curse the Jews (Genesis 12:3).

Therefore, America, which has blessed the Jews more than any nation in history, has been uniquely blessed; and the Arab world, which curses the Jewish state and Jewish people, is benighted. Conversely, should America abandon Israel, it will cease to be blessed. And only when the Arab world abandons its hate-filled preoccupation with the Jewish state will it begin to leave its benighted state.

11. God cares about goodness more than He cares about anything else. “The holy God is sanctified through righteous conduct” (Isaiah 5:16).

Therefore, God is not sanctified when Jews place law above goodness or when Christians place faith above goodness.

12. Human beings, not animals, are created in God’s image.

Therefore, human life is infinitely more valuable than animal life.

13. God, not human beings, is the author of the Torah.

Therefore, even when the Torah’s laws are time-bound— for example, the temple sacrifices or the potion drunk by an accused adulterer — its values are eternal even when unpopular (for example, man-woman marriage, taking the life of murderers, honoring a parent one does not love).

14. At the present time, conservative Christians — such as Evangelicals — and conservatives generally — such as Wall Street Journal columnists and talk radio hosts — are Israel’s, and therefore the Jews’, best friends. Meanwhile, universities throughout the Western world are centers of Israel hatred.

Therefore, most Jews ought to be suffering from major cognitive dissonance. That which they most distrust — Christians and conservatives — are Israel’s greatest defenders; and that which they most venerate — the universities — are Israel’s greatest antagonists.

15. The Israel-Arab conflict is the morally clearest dispute in our time.

Therefore, anyone who sides with Israel’s enemies or who works to delegitimize Israel has a broken moral compass, is to be feared, and is to be fought by all good people.

Dennis Prager’s nationally syndicated radio talk show is heard in Los Angeles on KRLA (AM 870) 9 a.m. to noon. His latest project is the Internet-based Prager University (prageru.com).

My Jewish Credo Read More »

Letters to the Editor: Anti-circucision, Sarah Palin, Bin Laden

Anti-Circumcision Advocates Draw Ire

It appears that the male genital mutilation organization (MGMbill.org), Matthew Hess and Jena Troutman (“In Foreskin Fight, Even Terminology Is Being Disputed,” June 3 ) are following in the footsteps of such notorious leaders as Hitler, Stalin, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, and Roman emperor Constantine in their quest to make circumcision illegal for males under 18 … and punishable by jail time.

The banning of circumcision was the first step used by these tyrants to eliminate and expel their Jewish population.

So, if they are so worried about “traumatizing” unborn males regarding their sexual pleasure, why not little infants who have total immersion baptisms and infants ripped from their mother’s womb with a C-section?

Then, there is the First Amendment, which promises religious freedom. Perhaps they do not understand that this means the right to practice your religion in your own way as long as it does not violate anybody’s rights and is legal.

Let’s hear how the Jewish and Muslim men who have had circumcisions feel about this.

As a Jewish woman who has had three Jewish husbands, I can assure that they were not lacking in sexual pleasure, nor was I.

Sandra Reid Stackler
Malibu


Pretty Women: How Much Do Looks Matter?

You are absolutely correct! I’ve thought for some time now, not only if they weren’t pretty, but how about if they were men? Would anyone have given either a second look? They are attractive women with little intellectual power or curiosity and are an embarrassment to this country (and should be an embarrassment to the GOP.) And it is an insult to most Americans that they are narcissistic enough to think they are remotely qualified to be president.

Barbara Justice-Kamp
via e-mail


As a former fairly attractive woman, now 65, I don’t think what you are saying is out of line.  It is simply the truth.  I think the fact that Sarah Palin is pretty is one of the reasons she was chosen to run with John McCain. After all, he’s so far from being handsome, having someone who could balance the old-man-scary look up on the stage was a big boost. People in his campaign knew that. It must be hard when formerly handsome guys like McCain can no longer get by on their looks, same as it is for pretty women who age.

No doubt plenty of women will take issue with your story, but deep down they know it helps to be pretty. It helps to be handsome. Facts. Thank you for a good essay.

Lou Anne Honderich
via e-mail


Just wanted you to know that I agree with Marty Kaplan’s column on pretty women and current politics. I figure you may have gotten some flak on this column, so I wanted to let you know there is at least one feminist who agrees with it.
 
Bonnie Pastor
via e-mail


How dare you allow a sexual attack on Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin in your otherwise better-than-usual issue of The Jewish Journal (“If Bachman and Palin Weren’t Pretty,” June 3)? Apparently having nothing intelligent to add to the national discourse, Marty Kaplan attacks their appearance and adds personal insults for good measure. Disgusting.

Warren Scheinin
Redondo Beach


In Need of Increased Jewish Outreach

I applaud Rabbi Daniel Mehlman’s wonderful story on performing a conversion ceremony in Mexico (“Amigos in San Miguel de Allende,” June 3). Unfortunately, some synagogues had previously turned away the people he so generously welcomed into our civilization. His example of Jewish outreach raises larger questions of why the worldwide Jewish community, in demographic and disaffiliation crisis, is not doing more to seek out potential converts and to combat continuing efforts to evangelize us. We could take a more proactive approach by dramatically increasing funding for and promotion of Jews-by-Choice programs. We could also boycott media such as the Salem Radio Network, owner of KRLA-AM 870 and host of a “messianic rabbi” who argues weekly on the show “Shalom Talk” that we should become Christians. Why not ask KRLA commentators Glenn Beck, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager (this last a regular Journal contributor) why they affiliate with a station that is so welcoming to Jews for Jesus?  For a community so engaged in so many issues, we are strangely silent when faced with our own decline.

Peter L. Reich
Professor of Law, Whittier Law School
Costa Mesa


Don’t Compare Rwanda and Palestine

Jewish director Gilles Paquet-Brenner in an interview cited in “Nazis, Newspapers and Nuremberg” (Summer Sneaks issue,  June 2011) indicates that anyone can connect with his story, not only Jews, but other victims:  “Such a character could easily be from Rwanda or Palestine.” Linking Nazi atrocities and the killings in Rwanda with Palestine is downright sickening. This is some kind of upside-down world where the treatment of Palestinians is seen by some as being in the same league with the worst genocidal episodes. Comparing the situation in Israel to the Nazis would not lead to Paquet-Brenner’s conclusion. Were the Palestinians the victims or the perpetrators of the bombing of family pizza restaurants and cafes? Were Palestinians the slaughtered or the slaughterers at a teenage nightclub in Tel Aviv? Rwanda and Palestine — please!!!

Robert Rome
Tarzana

  


A Muslim Insider’s Views on Death of Bin Laden

I want to applaud The Jewish Journal for inviting Salam Al-Mayarati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, to present a position of the Muslim-American community regarding the death of Osama bin Laden (“Death of an Ideology,” May 20). I also wish to thank Mr. Al-Mayarati for having the courage to publicly explain to his fellow Americans how Muslims feel about despots.

Having said that, I would have been even more comforted during the months immediately following the Twin Towers attack of 9/11 had Mr. Al-Mayarati exhibited the same courage by publicly denouncing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda by specifically naming them rather than offering concern regarding terrorism in general. Some of my Muslim-American friends who, along with all of us, regarded Osama bin Laden as a treacherous and murdering terrorist, were not hesitant to state their views in a timely fashion.

One thing I know: true leaders and others in the Jewish community are not hesitant to have the courage to immediately and publicly condemn their acts by their fellow Jews that they believe to be wrong, and when they do, it is reported in The Jewish Journal.

Stu Bernstein
Santa Monica

Letters to the Editor: Anti-circucision, Sarah Palin, Bin Laden Read More »

Obama’s dilemma — What went wrong and what can be fixed

Say what you will about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House last month, there is no question that things did not go exactly as planned.

If you believe that President Barack Obama is Israel’s staunchest friend, trying his best to save it from unsustainable status quo and from the wrath of September’s proposed vote for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, you must admit that he did not expect to see a defiant Bibi receive a hero’s welcome in Israel after spelling out Israel’s final red lines. Such entrenchment does not make Israel’s position palatable to the Europeans.

Alternatively, if you believe that Obama cares more about appeasing the Arab street than about the fate of Israel, you must admit that he did not expect Bibi’s defiance to receive such enthusiastic approval by the two houses of Congress in Washington, D.C. Such response does not make the Arab position palatable to the American people.

I don’t know about you, but when the president of the world’s most powerful nation is taken aback by the turns of events, my nerves become somewhat jittery. Presidents are supposed to anticipate anything that might occur; their teams of experts, scholars and advisers are there to foresee reactions, prevent surprises and, most important, understand forces, undercurrents and public sentiments. When these experts miscalculate things, I immediately ask myself: Wait, is it just a passing miscalculation or indicative of the prism through which they see the world?

The latter would worry me and, if that’s the case in this instance, should worry anyone who is concerned with the prospect of peace in the Middle East. So, what exactly went wrong?

I spent last week reading everything analysts said and wrote about Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu, from The Huffington Post to Fox News, and the only theory that made sense to me was the following:

First, Obama’s highest priority is to renew the peace process, regardless of current assessments of its success or failure, apparently believing that the process in itself will create new momentum to overcome all obstacles to peace.

Second, Obama sees Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as willing but weak and Bibi as strong but unwilling, which explains why he did not demand some Arab concessions as a prerequisite to negotiations.

Third, and this is where he is both right and wrong, Obama assumed that Netanyahu can be pressured to make concessions if perceived by mainstream Israel society as squandering an opportunity to achieve a lasting peace.

This assumption is correct when it comes to borders, Jerusalem and Jewish settlements but not when it comes to the other two issues on Netanyahu’s list of red lines: the return of refugees and recognition of Israel’s legitimacy.

This last point deserves our attention, because it leads to countless misconceptions by politicians and analysts; why would anyone insist on hypothetical linguistic nuances of legitimacy when the physical existence of a war-stricken nation is at stake?

True, Israeli society is peace-driven, even peace-obsessed; I do not know of any culture where the word “peace” appears more frequently in folk songs, children books, the arts, theaters and TV debates. As a result, no politician who dares erode Israel’s hope for peace can survive a day in office.

Yet, at the same time, Israelis are realistic, and they are currently in possession of new and highly sophisticated antennae for reading their neighbors’ intentions toward coexistence.

Put together, Israelis are ready to give up 10 times more than what people say they should for a lasting peace and, at the same time, not ready to give up even one-tenth of what people say they should for anything less than a lasting peace. They have seen the bloody consequences of a quasi-peace, and they understand perfectly well what such consequences would bring in the new age of rockets, missiles and shifting regimes.

This simple truth seems to have escaped the prisms of Western media and many American analysts. Take Thomas L. Friedman, for example. In his article “Lessons From Tahrir Square” (The New York Times, May 24, 2011), Friedman calls for Palestinians to “announce that every Friday from today forward will be ‘Peace Day,’ and have thousands of West Bank Palestinians march nonviolently to Jerusalem” with a sign saying: “Two states for two peoples.”

“Trust me,” says Friedman “it would stimulate a real peace debate within Israel.”

Friedman has spent decades in the Middle East and has many friends in Israel and the West Bank. His “iron law of the Israeli-Arab peace” is accurate and compelling: “Whichever party has the Israeli silent majority on its side wins.” It is surprising, therefore, that he proposes a move that, first, cannot materialize and, second, would not have any effect on the Israeli silent majority. Here is why:

No Palestinian has ever uttered the words “two states for two peoples” in public. Some have learned to say “two-state solution” when Western journalists are around or when pollsters show up in town, but you can Google the Internet until dawn and you will not find the sentence “two states for two peoples” used by any Palestinian leader, spokesperson, journalist or TV commentator, not to mention teachers, poets and mosque preachers. The idea that Jews are a “people” is so alien to the Palestinian mindset that it has been banned from public discourse together with other taboos, such as “Jewish history” and “an end to the conflict.”

Israeli journalists and TV anchors make a big fuss about this omission from Palestinian discourse; I am surprised that Friedman has not noticed it and that he gives his readers the impression that the phrase “two states for two peoples” is taken from an ancient Palestinian nursery rhyme. Anyone who listened to Hanan Ashrawi last week on C-SPAN would realize that it would take more than a New York Times article to elicit a sound resembling “Jewish people” from Palestinian lips.

Now comes the second problem: convincing the Israeli silent majority that the words “two states for two peoples,” even if spoken, are taken seriously by their speakers. Having been burned by Oslo and seasoned from years of the duplicity of Yasser Arafat and Abu Mazen, mainstream Israelis would no doubt seek some evidence that those words have been internalized by their future peace partners. At the very least, Israelis would ask Palestinian leaders to state the “two peoples” refrain out loud, so they would not escape shopkeepers in Ramallah and refugee camps in Kalandia and Gaza. Most likely they would also demand to see at least one teacher on Palestinian TV telling his class what these words means, i.e., that there was and still is such a thing as a “Jewish people,” that the Palestinian people has accepted the Jewish people’s right to a state of its own and that it is Israel, not Germany, that is designated to be that state.

Judea Pearl is a professor at UCLA and president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation (danielpearl.org), named after his son. He is a co-editor of “I Am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl” (Jewish Lights, 2004), winner of the National Jewish Book Award.

While some observers regard this level of recognition to be unattainable and, therefore, an unreasonable demand by Israel, the Israeli silent majority regards it to be an essential, if not the only, litmus test for Arabs’ intentions toward coexistence, without which no peace agreement would be sustainable. One can retract words said in speeches, interviews or written agreements, but not words said in schools while one’s children are listening.

This brings us back to Obama and what he can do to hasten this process of mutual recognition. Surely Obama cannot dictate to Palestinian teachers what they should teach in Ramallah, but he could make it clear to the Palestinian leadership that their dream of achieving statehood cannot materialize before internalizing the idea that their neighbors, too, deserve such statehood, both morally and historically.

In my last column, published in these pages just before Obama spoke, I expressed hope that he would echo in his speech to the Arab world what he said to his Jewish audience on Yom HaAtzmaut: “Sixty-three years ago, when Israel declared its independence, the dream of a state for the Jewish people in their historic homeland was finally realized.”

Unfortunately, the magic words “historic homeland” did not appear in Obama’s speech of May 19. Israelis know that as long as Obama refrains from stating these magic words for fear of offending the Arab street, they have a thousand times more reasons to fear that same street, and hence to question the wisdom of every concession. Conversely, they also know that when Obama pronounces these magic words, it will be a sign of Arabs’ readiness to invest in education for peace, because education for peace has only one channel: historical legitimization.

Thus, Obama is right that Netanyahu can be pressured to concessions by Israel’s mainstream voters, but to get that would require a bold and unwavering statement from the president of the United States: “Two states for two peoples, equally legitimate and equally indigenous.”

Obama’s dilemma — What went wrong and what can be fixed Read More »

Israeli inventiveness gets local spotlight

When Noam Bardin demonstrated how Waze — a Twitter-infused GPS — got him from LAX to the Luxe Hotel on Sunset in 26 minutes during rush hour, several attendees at the third annual Israel Conference immediately took out their phones to download his app.

“The closing of the 405 [in mid-July] is the best moment to look at this app and understand what it can do for you every day,” Waze CEO Bardin said.

During the daylong conference at the Luxe Hotel on June 2, which attracted several hundred Israeli and American businessmen and entrepreneurs, CEOs of established and start-up Israeli companies were given five minutes each to show off innovative solutions for Twitter-age problems to the audience, some of which they could put to use right away. Product pitches included Genieo, a customizable newspaper-style homepage that provides news from your favorite sources; PicScout, image-recognition software designed to prevent picture cybertheft; and DudaMobile, a platform that optimizes Web sites for mobile phones (as it did for the conference’s Web site, israelconference.org).

Sharona Justman of STEP Strategy Advisors, who co-founded and co-chaired the conference with Israeli technology scene godfather Yossi Vardi, served as the effusive master of ceremonies during the event, introducing each presentation with the day’s watchword: “amazing.”

“We consider this our contribution to giving Israel a brilliant, positive shine in the world market,” she said. 

While she’s driven by a deep connection with Israel, politics played no part in the presentations and panels. “It’s a business-focused conference that tells the stories of success with Israeli companies,” she said.

This year’s conference focused on Israeli inventions that enhance and optimize how information — entertainment, news, social media, advertisements and games — is distributed and received.

“We’ll all be multiscreen users,” said Jonathan Miller, CEO of Digital Media Group and chief digital officer of News Corp., in his keynote address. He predicts that a strategic linking of mobile phones, computers and televisions will occur over the next three to five years.

“I think we’re about to see Web video become a real force,” he said. “That’s good news overall, but, for companies like us, we have to figure out how to coexist with this new world while maintaining our place in the existing world.”

One presenter that caught Miller’s eye was VivoText, a text-to-speech application founded by an Israeli classical pianist that imbues electronic voices with human expression and inflection, paving the way for electronic devices to read news.

Other companies demonstrated how Israelis are at the forefront of ushering in the video revolution. Hollywood- and Israel-based RayV is a company delivering broadcast-quality HDTV over IP technology. In addition to providing the evening’s entertainment, endearingly geeky Israeli pop star Yoni Bloch showcased his company, Interlude, which designs interactive music videos and movie trailers. 

If not founded by Israelis, companies represented at the conference have research and development offices in Israel. For instance, LivePerson, a company that provides live chat solutions, was founded by Robert LoCascio, a Catholic Italian New Yorker who describes himself as “Jewish by acquisition”; his company acquired three Israeli companies and has 300 employees in Israel.

“When I’m there, I’m very happy,” he said in an interview, “because people are very creative, very engaged and excited.”

During panel sessions, Israeli executives from AOL, eBay, Marvell Technology Group, Nokia Siemens, Microsoft/Xbox, Plimus and Yahoo! discussed the influence of Israeli brainpower and inventiveness on these corporate giants. Conspicuously missing was a representative from Apple, but conference co-founder Justman promises that will change next year.

“There’s so much business going on in Israel that there’s room for everyone to get involved in an Israeli business,” Justman said. “And it’s not only in the line of interest of the Jewish business community — it’s an opportunity for every business person.”

In the sunny outdoor corridor, Clark Callander, a managing director with GCA Savvian, a financial investment bank based in San Francisco, eyed the booth of Powermat, a charging mat for smartphones soon to be outfitted in GM automobiles and at airport terminals. While he said he likes visiting Israel, Zionism played no role in his attendance; he sought to diversify business opportunities.

“Markets are changing so fast around the world,” he said. “You can’t only look at the U.S. You have to see what’s coming out of other countries.”

This year, the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) joined the conference as a co-sponsor. As a leader in the natural resources sector, TSX listed its first Israeli company, Adira Energy, last December and hopes to become an alternative to NASDAQ for Israeli companies at early stages of growth. The pro-Israeli sentiment coming out of Canada is an ancillary benefit.

“For us, it’s really just for the business, but the culture of support is never a bad thing,” said Kevan Cowan, president of TSX Markets and group head of Equities.

But for Daniel Friedland, a partner at the Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe law firm in downtown Los Angeles, his interest in expanding his firm’s representation of Israeli companies stems from a recognition of Israeli innovativeness and entrepreneurial spirit — and also his personal love for Israel as a Jew.

“It’s easier to stay with what I have,” he said, “but to make business with Israel happen, you have to have the passion and drive.”

Israeli inventiveness gets local spotlight Read More »